🌳Boltzmannian Coarse-Graining and Nagarjunian Emptiness

The quest to identify the foundational fabric of reality has led both ancient contemplative traditions and modern physical sciences to a parallel conclusion: the macroscopic world of discrete, self-contained entities and the unidirectional flow of time are not fundamental features of the universe. Instead, they are emergent phenomena born of relational perspectives and cognitive or observational limitations. Separated by nearly two millennia, the metaphysical deconstruction of the second-century Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna and the statistical mechanics of the nineteenth-century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann converge on this profound truth.1 While Nāgārjuna utilized rigorous dialectics to demonstrate that all phenomena are empty of inherent, independent existence (svabhāva), Boltzmann formulated the mathematical framework of coarse-graining to show how the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics—including the arrow of time—emerge from a blurred, statistical rendering of a time-reversible microscopic reality.1 This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level analysis of this conceptual convergence, demonstrating how both frameworks dismantle naive realism to reveal a relational, process-based cosmos.

Nagarjuna’s Metaphysics of Emptiness and the Refutation of Svabhava

At the core of Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka (Middle Way) philosophy lies the systematic deconstruction of svabhāva, a Sanskrit term translated variously as "inherent existence," "own-being," or "unchanging essence".1 To possess svabhāva is to exist in a primary, unconstructed manner, completely independent of external causes, conditions, or observers.1 Nāgārjuna’s seminal work, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), systematically refutes the possibility of any entity possessing such independent essence, demonstrating that any attempt to establish svabhāva leads to insupportable logical contradictions.2

The Three Modes of Svabhāva

To understand what Nāgārjuna deconstructs, it is necessary to examine the traditional categorization of svabhāva that emerged in the scholastic Abhidharma schools and the wider Indian philosophical milieu 1:

The Abhidharma schools, particularly the Sarvāstivāda, argued that while macroscopic objects like chariots or tables are conceptually designated (prajñaptisat) and therefore lack substantial existence, their ultimate constituent parts—the dharmas—possess svabhāva.8 These dharmas were viewed as the indivisible, fundamental entities of the universe, each carrying its own unique, particular identity.10 Nāgārjuna’s radical move was to extend the critique of emptiness (śūnyatā) to these very dharmas, arguing that even the most fundamental physical and mental constituents are empty of svabhāva because they, too, arise dependently (pratītyasamutpāda).1

The Triple Characterization of Emptiness

Later commentators, most notably Candrakīrti and eventually the Tibetan philosopher Tsongkhapa, clarified that ultimate reality, which is emptiness, can be characterized through a triple negation 1:

1. Changelessness: The absence of an unchanging, static essence.1

2. Non-Origination (anutpāda): The realization that phenomena do not undergo ultimate, intrinsic creation.1

3. Non-Dependence: The absence of any entity that stands alone, independent of conditions.1

This triple characterization presents an apparent paradox: if emptiness is the ultimate truth, does it not itself possess the characteristics of a substance-svabhāva?1 Nāgārjuna preemptively resolves this by asserting the "emptiness of emptiness".10 Emptiness is not a transcendent, self-existent absolute or a prime matter that underlies appearances; it is merely the universal condition of the interdependence of things.8 To say that everything is empty is to say that everything exists conventionally, and because emptiness itself is a dependent designation, it is also empty of inherent existence.1

Epistemological Two Truths and the Idealist Critique

Nāgārjuna’s philosophy operates through the doctrine of the Two Truths: conventional truth (saṁvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya).10 Historically, commentators like Candrakīrti and Tsongkhapa emphasized that this distinction is primarily epistemological rather than ontological.12 It distinguishes between how things appear to an ordinary, conceptually mediated consciousness and how they are perceived by an unmitigated, enlightened mind.11

However, this radical anti-foundationalism was not universally accepted within the Buddhist tradition.16 The later Yogācāra-Mādhyamika philosopher Ratnākaraśānti raised an important critique, arguing that Madhyamaka deconstructive reasoning fails to eliminate one fundamental reality: the reflexivity of awareness (svasaṃvedana).16 Ratnākaraśānti asserted that while Madhyamaka successfully refutes the content of awareness (phenomenal appearances, which are empty), it cannot refute awareness itself.16 In his view, Nāgārjuna was an idealist for whom awareness is fundamental and non-empty, whereas mainstream Madhyamaka (represented by Candrakīrti and Śāntarakṣita) treated appearances and awareness as having equal, empty ontological status.16

This internal Buddhist debate closely mirrors the tension in modern physics regarding the role of the observer: is the observer an external, fundamental entity that collapses the wave function, or is the observer merely another physical, relational system within the network of interactions?18

Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics and the Physics of Blurring

While Nāgārjuna dismantled the illusion of substance through dialectics, Ludwig Boltzmann confronted a profound physical paradox: how can the macroscopic, irreversible laws of thermodynamics be reconciled with the microscopic, time-reversible laws of classical mechanics?3 Boltzmann’s resolution of this paradox laid the foundation for statistical mechanics and introduced a conceptual equivalent to the "veiled" perspective of saṁvṛti-satya: the process of coarse-graining.3

Microstates, Macrostates, and Liouville's Theorem

In classical Hamiltonian mechanics, the state of a system containing particles is represented by a single point in a -dimensional phase space, which represents the exact positions and momenta of all particles.4 This is the "fine-grained" description of the system.4 According to Liouville's theorem, the volume of a region in phase space occupied by an ensemble of trajectories remains strictly constant under unitary, Hamiltonian time evolution.4 Consequently, the fine-grained entropy of an isolated system—defined by the Gibbs or von Neumann entropy—is a conserved quantity over time (), offering no explanation for the observed increase in thermodynamic entropy.4

To derive the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Boltzmann recognized that macroscopic observers cannot access the precise microstate of particles.3 Instead, human observation is limited to macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and volume.3 Boltzmann mathematically formalized this limitation by partitioning the phase space into discrete cells, or "equivalence classes," of similar macroscopic behavior—a procedure known as coarse-graining.3

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|                      PHASE SPACE                          |
|                                                           |
|   +---------------+---------------+---------------+       |
|   | Microstate A1 | Microstate B1 | Microstate C1 |       |
|   |      *        |      *        |      *        |       |
|   | Microstate A2 | Microstate B2 | Microstate C2 |       |
|   |      *        |      *        |      *        |       |
|   +---------------+---------------+---------------+       |
|   |  Macrostate A  |  Macrostate B  |  Macrostate C  |       |
|   | (Coarse Cell) | (Coarse Cell) | (Coarse Cell) |       |
|   +---------------+---------------+---------------+       |
|                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+

A "macrostate" is a collection of all microstates that yield the same macroscopic measurements.3 The Boltzmann entropy of a macrostate is defined by:

where is the Boltzmann constant and represents the volume of the region in phase space corresponding to that macrostate (the number of underlying microstates, or "complexions").3 As a system evolves, its microstate moves along a deterministic trajectory; however, because the vast majority of microstates belong to the macrostate of maximum volume (equilibrium), the system is statistically overwhelming to transition from smaller, highly ordered coarse-grained cells to larger, disordered cells.3 Thus, the irreversible increase in entropy is not a feature of the microscopic trajectory itself, but an emergent property born of the coarse-grained partition.3

Derivation of the Boltzmann Factor

The mathematical robustness of this coarse-graining procedure is demonstrated by the derivation of the Boltzmann factor for single-particle energy distributions in classical many-body systems.23 This derivation relies on two physical requirements 23:

1. Coarse-graining-scale invariance: The empirical distribution of energy must remain stable under changes to the scale of the coarse-graining partition.23

2. Energy-shift invariance: Because adding a constant to the Hamiltonian does not alter the equations of motion, the relative probabilities assigned to different energy bins must depend only on the energy difference between them, not on their absolute values.23

These two conditions uniquely yield a functional equation for probability ratios, whose only non-trivial, stable solution is the exponential Boltzmann weight, .23 For separable Hamiltonians, this factorizes into kinetic and configurational contributions sharing the same parameter, , which is identified as the inverse kinetic temperature.23 Thus, the very distribution of energy at the macroscopic level is uniquely determined by the scale-invariance of the coarse-graining process.23

Substantial versus Mere Coarse-Graining and Emergence

The philosophical status of coarse-graining has historically been a subject of intense debate, with critics accusing it of being a "deceitful artifice" that introduces subjectivity and anthropocentrism into fundamental physics.3 To address this, philosophers of science distinguish between "substantial" and "mere" coarse-graining 5:

Substantial coarse-graining, such as the Renormalization Group (RG) method, demonstrates that neglecting microscopic details is not merely a human limitation, but a necessary mathematical condition for revealing the stable, autonomous laws of the macroscopic scale.5 Robert Batterman defines this emergence as a failure of reduction, occurring when a more refined theory () fails to smoothly limit to a coarser theory () as a fundamental parameter approaches zero.5 This maps precisely onto the Madhyamaka understanding of saṁvṛti-satya: conventional reality is not a "mere" illusion to be discarded; it possesses functional, causal efficacy and structural stability, despite being ultimately empty of inherent existence.11

Relationality in Quantum Physics and Dependent Origination

The conceptual convergence between Madhyamaka and modern physics deepens when moving from statistical classical mechanics to quantum mechanics.6 Carlo Rovelli, one of the primary architects of loop quantum gravity, has explicitly drawn inspiration from Nāgārjuna’s philosophy to make sense of the quantum universe through his Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM).6

Relational Quantum Mechanics and the Postulates of Information

RQM, first introduced in 1996, refines the standard Copenhagen interpretation by extending the role of the "observer" to any physical system.19 The theory is built upon two core informational postulates 19:

1. Postulate 1: The relevant information that can be extracted from a system with a compact phase space is finite.19

2. Postulate 2: It is always possible to acquire new information about a system.19

Because the information is finite but always open to new acquisitions, any act of measurement (interaction) discards previous information through quantum decoherence.21 RQM rejects the idea that a quantum system possesses an intrinsic, observer-independent wave function or physical state.19 The quantum state is not an ontological entity, but a mathematical tool representing the information that one physical system has acquired about another.19 Physical variables only take on definite values when two systems interact; a variable does not have a value "in-itself" prior to an interaction.6

Quantum Field Theory and the Sum of Histories

This relational ontology is further illustrated by Quantum Field Theory (QFT), where the classical concept of solid, localized particles is entirely replaced.6 In QFT, particles are not substantial billiard balls bouncing in a void; they are temporary quantum excitations of underlying fields.6 A particle only manifests when the field interacts with an observational apparatus or another system.31

When physicists calculate the probability of a particle transition (from an initial state to a final state), they do not track a single, defined trajectory.31 Instead, they compute a sum over Feynman diagrams, which mathematically represents summing over all possible, intermediate histories—including highly non-classical paths.31 In between interactions, the physical system "opens up into a cloud of possibility," meaning that its properties exist only as a relational network of potential transitions rather than absolute, localized facts.6

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|                   RELATIONAL CONVERGENCE                  |
|                                                           |
|     Madhyamaka Buddhism      | Relational Quantum Mechanics|
|  ---------------------------+---------------------------  |
|  * Dependent Origination    | * Relational Variables      |
|    (Pratītyasamutpāda)      |   (No intrinsic values)     |
|                             |                             |
|  * Emptiness of Essence     | * State-Vector as Auxiliary |
|    (Niḥsvabhāva)            |   (Not an ontic entity)     |
|                             |                             |
|  * Two Truths Doctrine      | * Multiplicity of           |
|    (Samvrti & Paramartha)   |   Perspectives (No absolute |
|                             |   background frame)         |
|                             |                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+

The Informational Substrate: Modern Formalizations

This relational emergence has inspired modern mathematical attempts to unify physical, computational, and metaphysical systems.32 A notable example is the Pleromic Causal Simulation Model (PCSM), which aims to formalize dependent arising through computational information theory.32 In this framework, reality is modeled in three distinct layers 32:

• Base Reality (): The unconditioned state space governed by base dynamics, .32

• The Mediating Engine: A rendering map, , which represents a lossy, coarse-graining projection of the base state.32

• The Simulated Cosmos (): The emergent, macroscale state space where events are defined purely relationally as nodes in a causal graph.32

To ensure physical consistency, the rendering map is bound by Landauer’s principle, which dictates that any information-processing or coarse-graining operation requires a minimum dissipation of thermodynamic energy 32:

In this computational model, events in the simulated cosmos lack any intrinsic essence; they are defined purely relationally, mirroring the Buddhist principle of emptiness.32 Emergence is modeled via a coarse-graining operator, , illustrating how physical structure arises from lossy, perspective-dependent mappings of an underlying informational substrate.32

Deconstructing the Arrow of Time and Change

The deconstruction of naive realism reaches its zenith in both frameworks when applied to the passage of time.27 In everyday experience, time appears as a linear, unidirectional flow sweeping everything from the past, through the present, and into the future.34 Both Nāgārjuna and the physics of thermodynamics demonstrate that this flow is a perspective-dependent illusion.13

Nagarjuna’s Deconstruction of Time and Change

In Chapter 19 of the MMK ("An Analysis of Time"), Nāgārjuna presents three principal arguments against the inherent existence of time 13:

1. The Mutual Dependence of Temporal Divisions: Nāgārjuna argues that the "past," "present," and "future" have no independent existence (svabhāva).13 If the present and future are dependent upon the past, they must already exist within the past, which is contradictory.13 Conversely, if they are entirely separate and independent of the past, they would be unconnected, uncaused, and devoid of any temporal reference, rendering the concept of time incoherent.13 Thus, time's divisions exist only relative to one another.13

2. The Non-Existence of the Fleeting Moment: If time is continuously fleeting, it consists of infinitesimal moments that cannot be grasped or experienced.13 If one attempts to define a "static moment" of time that can be grasped, it would no longer possess the characteristic of duration or change, and therefore would not be temporal.13

3. Time's Dependence on Objects: Time is not an independent background arena (or Newtonian absolute space-time) in which objects exist.13 Rather, our perception of time is entirely predicated upon our perception of changing objects.13 Because objects themselves lack inherent existence and cannot be found under ultimate analysis, time—which is dependent upon those objects—is revealed to be a misconception and a "figment of delusion".13

Nāgārjuna similarly deconstructs the concept of change.13 Change is only perceived as valid from the standpoint of ignorance (avidyā), which cognizes solid, separate entities.13 Once this cognitive obscuration is uprooted, one no longer perceives independent entities, and therefore the very notion of change is realized to be a misconception.13

The Thermal Time Hypothesis and Relativistic Spacetime

This metaphysical critique is deeply reflected in modern relativistic physics.20 In Albert Einstein's General Relativity, space and time are unified into a single, dynamical gravitational field.20 The rate at which proper time lapses is modified by the local distribution of mass and energy, destroying the Newtonian notion of absolute time.20

In the Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity, the mathematical framework is expressed by a constraint on phase space.20 The fundamental equations of loop quantum gravity do not contain any time or space variables.27 The theory simply describes relations between different variables (e.g., how the quantum loops of gravity evolve relative to one another) without a background clock.27

To recover the familiar flow of time, Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes formulated the Thermal Time Hypothesis.20 In General Relativity, because there is no preferred, global time variable, any thermodynamic state (statistical mixture) of the system defines a unique physical flow.20 A thermodynamic state of the gravitational field is a statistical mixture of spacetimes, where clocks tick at different rates.20 The flow of time is thus recovered not as a fundamental, mechanical parameter, but as an emergent property of our thermodynamic state.20 As Rovelli states, the arrow of time appears only where there is heat, which is another way of saying that time is born of our coarse-grained ignorance of the microscopic state.27

Rebirth without Transmigration: Thermodynamic Analogs of Continuity

The Buddhist deconstruction of time and identity raises a major question: if there is no permanent, substantial self, how does one account for the continuity of karma and the process of rebirth?13 Nāgārjuna’s Pratītyasamutpādahṛdayakārikā explains that empty, essenceless phenomena are produced entirely from other empty phenomena.13 The aggregates (skandhas) are serially connected across time, but nothing actually transfers or transmigrates from one moment to the next.13 Nāgārjuna uses several classic analogies to illustrate this agentless continuity 13:

• The Candle Flame: Lighting a candle from another candle transfers the flame (energy, pattern) without any material substance transmigrating.39

• The Echo: An echo is produced in dependence on a voice, but no actual "sound-substance" travels from the mouth to the canyon wall.13

• The Mirror Reflection: An image appears in a mirror in dependence on an object, but the object does not enter the glass.13

• The Clay Seal: An impression is made on wax by a seal, but no clay is transferred.13

This process-based continuity finds a precise physical analog in thermodynamic dephasing and spin-echo experiments.40 In a spin-echo experiment, a system of magnetic moments (spins) is initially aligned (high order).40 Due to spatial inhomogeneities in the external magnetic field, the spins begin to dephase, appearing to lose all order and increase in entropy.40 However, if a radiofrequency pulse is applied to invert the spins, they spontaneously rephase, producing an "echo" of the original ordered state.40

Boltzmann's H-theorem shows that during this process, the initial ordered information is never fundamentally destroyed at the microscopic level.38 Instead, the information is transferred into non-trivial, complex correlations between the spin and translational degrees of freedom of the molecules.40 This physical mechanism models how highly structured information (karma) can be conserved and transmitted across temporal intervals without requiring any permanent, substantial carrier—only a continuous, relational transfer of structural correlations.13

Epistemic Observers and the Dissolution of the Self

The deconstruction of naive realism has profound existential and scientific implications when applied to the concept of the "self".1 Both Buddhism and relational physics target the deeply ingrained intuition that there exists a solid, permanent observer residing inside the body, distinct from the external universe.1

The Interface Theory of Perception and Fitness

To understand why human minds are biologically predisposed to perceive a world of solid, independent objects despite its relational, empty nature, we must look to the intersection of evolutionary biology and cognitive science.42 The Interface Theory of Perception argues that natural selection does not favor veridical (perfectly fine-grained) perception.42

A cognitive agent that attempts to perceive the complete, fine-grained quantum and thermodynamic state of the environment would suffer an immense computational and energetic penalty.42 Instead, evolution selects for "simple," coarse-grained perceptual strategies that reflect the fitness distribution of the environment rather than its absolute physical structure.42

Perception acts as a desktop interface, where a "table" or a "chair" is merely a simplified icon designed to hide the underlying complexity of quantum fields and molecular fluctuations, allowing the agent to make rapid, survival-maximizing decisions under time pressure.6 This explains how saṁvṛti-satya (conventional truth) serves as an evolutionary necessity: our very survival is predicated upon our ability to coarse-grain the void into functional, empty icons.10

The Two-Truths of Spectral Graph Clustering

This epistemic partitioning is mathematically demonstrated by the "two-truths" phenomenon observed in spectral graph clustering and network analysis.44 When analyzing a complex graph (such as a connectome of neural pathways), there is often no single, uniquely correct way to partition the data.44 Depending on the mathematical procedure applied, fundamentally different but equally valid structures emerge 44:

COMPLEX INTERACTIVE GRAPH
                                  |
        +-------------------------+-------------------------+
        |                                                   |
Laplacian Spectral Embedding                         Adjacency Spectral Embedding
      (LSE Projection)                                     (ASE Projection)
        |                                                   |
        v                                                   v
AFFINITY STRUCTURE                                  CORE-PERIPHERY STRUCTURE
(e.g., dense hemispheric clusters)                 (e.g., gray matter vs. white matter)

If one applies Laplacian Spectral Embedding (LSE), the decomposition of the normalized Laplacian reveals affinity structure, identifying densely connected clusters with sparse interconnectivity between them.44 Conversely, if one applies Adjacency Spectral Embedding (ASE), the decomposition of the adjacency matrix reveals core-periphery structure, identifying one densely connected core and a sparsely connected periphery.44

For a finite network, neither embedding mathematically dominates the other.44 They identify fundamentally different, yet equally true and meaningful, representations of the same underlying data network.44 This serves as a precise mathematical proof of the two-truths doctrine: the structure we observe is not a singular, intrinsic property of the target system, but is co-determined by the specific coarse-grained projection through which we choose to analyze the web of interactions.11

Synthesized Philosophical Conclusions

The conceptual convergence between Ludwig Boltzmann’s thermodynamic coarse-graining and Nāgārjuna’s metaphysical deconstruction of svabhāva offers a robust comparative framework for the philosophy of science. By demonstrating that macroscopic entities, separate identities, and the very flow of time are emergent products of a blurred, relational perspective, both frameworks provide a liberating alternative to the reductionist and nihilistic extremes that have historically plagued both Eastern and Western thought.6

This synthesis suggests that the universe is fundamentally an unceasing, interconnected process of relations rather than a collection of static substances.6 Under the ultimate lens of physics (the time-symmetric microstate) and metaphysics (the realization of śūnyatā), the solid boundaries of objects, the progression of time, and the isolation of the self dissolve.27 Yet, under the conventional lens of coarse-graining and saṁvṛti-satya, these phenomena are validated as structurally stable, functional realities that allow for life, cognition, and meaning.5

Ultimately, recognizing the "emptiness" of our macroscopic world does not strip it of value; rather, as both Nāgārjuna and contemporary relational physicists assert, it frees us from the rigid attachments and false certainties of naive realism, revealing a universe that is fundamentally open, dynamic, and profoundly interconnected.6

Works cited

1. Nagarjuna – Sunyata - Buddhism: The Way of Emptiness, accessed June 7, 2026, https://buddhism-thewayofemptiness.blog.nomagic.uk/nagarjuna-sunyata/

2. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā - Wikipedia, accessed June 7, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81

3. State-levels and Boltzmann - Mathematics, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/kas-kornblum-2025.pdf

4. Coarse-grained modeling - Wikipedia, accessed June 7, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coarse-grained_modeling

5. A fine-grained distinction of coarse graining - PhilSci-Archive, accessed June 7, 2026, https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21711/1/Coarsegraining_final_ejps.pdf

6. When Ancient Wisdom Meets Quantum Reality: Nagarjuna's Emptiness and Modern Physics | by HEMANTH LINGAMGUNTA | Medium, accessed June 7, 2026, https://medium.com/@HEMANTH2520/when-ancient-wisdom-meets-quantum-reality-nagarjunas-emptiness-and-modern-physics-d15e7a50c1f7

7. An Introduction to Emptiness: Madhyamaka Buddhist Philosophy | Ruth Dillon-Mansfield, accessed June 7, 2026, https://ruth-dm.co.uk/posts/what-is-the-buddhist-concept-of-emptiness/

8. A Comprehensive Guide to the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika - Termatree, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.termatree.com/blogs/termatree/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-middle-way-nagarjunas-mulamadhyamakakarika

9. one idea, more than any other, has transformed our understanding of the fabric of reality: quantum physics. - Dharma.org.au, accessed June 7, 2026, http://www.dharma.org.au/dharmacloud/STF-Helgoland-chapter.pdf

10. Mādhyamika | Religion and Philosophy | Research Starters - EBSCO, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/madhyamika

11. Nāgarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakārikā - Jay L. Garfield, accessed June 7, 2026, https://jaygarfield.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/bookscancenter-1.pdf

12. Middle Way Buddhist Philosophy & The doctrine of Two Truths - Academia.edu, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.academia.edu/37543303/Middle_Way_Buddhist_Philosophy_and_The_doctrine_of_Two_Truths

13. Nagarjuna and Time | Awakening to Reality, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/07/nagarjuna-and-time.html

14. Madhyamaka Buddhism | Middle Way Society, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.middlewaysociety.org/middle-way/madhyamika-buddhism/

15. The Theory of Two Truths in India - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 7, 2026, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/

16. What would other philosophers say in reply to Nagarjuna's argument about emptiness? Particularly those that wouldn't invoke anything requiring faith. : r/askphilosophy - Reddit, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1ihjavl/what_would_other_philosophers_say_in_reply_to/

17. Nagarjuna and the emptiness of the Dharma - Buddhism Stack Exchange, accessed June 7, 2026, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50816/nagarjuna-and-the-emptiness-of-the-dharma

18. What Does a 1,800-year-old Buddhist Classic Have to Say about Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality?, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.templeton.org/news/what-does-a-1800-year-old-buddhist-classic-have-to-say-about-quantum-physics-and-the-nature-of-reality

19. Relational Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 7, 2026, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/

20. Thermodynamics without Time - arXiv, accessed June 7, 2026, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.19098

21. [quant-ph/0609190] Quasiclassical Coarse Graining and Thermodynamic Entropy - arXiv, accessed June 7, 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609190

22. Quantum mechanics and second law of thermodynamics - Physics Stack Exchange, accessed June 7, 2026, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/220803/quantum-mechanics-and-second-law-of-thermodynamics

23. Boltzmann Distribution from Invariance of Coarse-Graining-Scale and Energy-Shift - arXiv, accessed June 7, 2026, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.25987

24. Asymmetry, Abstraction, and Autonomy: Justifying Coarse-Graining in Statistical Mechanics | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science: Vol 71, No 2, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1093/bjps/axy020

25. 1 | Two Truths? | The Mirror of Insight | ebook on dhammatalks.org, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Mirror_ofInsight/Section0005.html

26. What epistemically responsible frameworks exist for using quantum physics analogies to explain Madhyamaka śūnyatā? - Philosophy Stack Exchange, accessed June 7, 2026, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/137397/what-epistemically-responsible-frameworks-exist-for-using-quantum-physics-analog

27. Carlo Rovelli's Radical Perspective on Reality - Quanta Magazine, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.quantamagazine.org/carlo-rovellis-radical-perspective-on-reality-20251029/

28. Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution - jch.com, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.jch.com/jch/notes/RovelliHelgoland.html

29. Quantum Physics And Buddhism – Carlo Rovelli Encounters Nāgārjuna - Media Lens, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.medialens.org/2024/quantum-physics-and-buddhism-carlo-rovelli-encounters-nagarjuna/

30. Harvard Science Book Talk: Carlo Rovelli, in conversation with Katie Mack, "Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution", accessed June 7, 2026, https://science.fas.harvard.edu/event/harvard-science-book-talk-carlo-rovelli

31. Carlo Rovelli | Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution | Talks at Google, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpWf2wyGQ0Q

32. (PDF) Pleromic Causal Simulation Model (PCSM) A Preprint - ResearchGate, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395962856_Pleromic_Causal_Simulation_Model_PCSM_A_Preprint

33. Nagarjuna and Time : r/Buddhism - Reddit, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6xvkdx/nagarjuna_and_time/

34. The Order of Time – by Carlo Rovelli | Absurd Being - WordPress.com, accessed June 7, 2026, https://absurdbeingblog.wordpress.com/2020/01/27/the-order-of-time-by-carlo-rovelli/

35. The Arrow of Time: From Local Systems to the Whole Universe - DOKUMEN.PUB, accessed June 7, 2026, https://dokumen.pub/the-arrow-of-time-from-local-systems-to-the-whole-universe.html

36. Time and Impermanence in Middle Way Buddhism and Modern ..., accessed June 7, 2026, https://centerforsacredsciences.org/Holos/holos-mansfield.html

37. 19. An Analysis of Time - The Wisdom Experience, accessed June 7, 2026, https://wisdomexperience.org/ebook/nagarjunas-middle-way/mulamadhyamakakarika-by-nagarjuna/19-an-analysis-of-time/

38. Evolution of Mind - UT Physics, accessed June 7, 2026, https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~gsudama/pub/1982_007.pdf

39. Nagarjuna – The Two Truths - Buddhism: The Way of Emptiness, accessed June 7, 2026, https://buddhism-thewayofemptiness.blog.nomagic.uk/nagarjuna-the-two-truths/

40. Consistent thermodynamics for spin echoes - arXiv, accessed June 7, 2026, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.0940

41. Relational Quantum Mechanics and Nagarjuna - The Gentleman Philosopher, accessed June 7, 2026, https://thegentlemanphilosopher.com/relational-quantum-mechanics-and-nagarjuna/

42. Interface theory of perception can overcome the rationality fetish, accessed June 7, 2026, https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/interface-theory-of-perception/

43. The Right to be Wrong: Navigating an Impossible World | by Boris (Bruce) Kriger | Medium, accessed June 7, 2026, https://medium.com/@krigerbruce/the-right-to-be-wrong-navigating-an-impossible-world-043b983995fe

44. On a two-truths phenomenon in spectral graph clustering - PNAS, accessed June 7, 2026, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1814462116

**